Take a peek behind the scenes at the self-proclaimed "Bastion of Fundamentalism" and "Fortress of Faith," Bob Jones University. A Bob Jones University graduate takes a close look at the Joneses, Bob Jones University, and the national network of Bob Jones-styled fundamentalist churches and ministries staffed by Bob Jones University graduates and influenced by the pragmatic philosophies and principles taught and practiced by BJU.
Jonesianism, a term perhaps first coined in BJU Exposed, is simply modern-day Phariseeism. Jonesianism is essentially a combination of psuedo-religious legalism with endless man-made rules given Ten Commandment-status, religious hypocrisy, extreme sectarianism, religious pride, and pervasive intellectual, ecclesiastic, ethical corruption and dishonesty all ruled over by a few men who embodied the worst qualities of the original Pharisees and whose teachings and actions cannot be questioned.

May 03, 2007

An OPEN LETTER TO DR. BOB JONES III BY CHARLES UNDERWOOD

“It is refreshing to see – and it only happens occasionally – a man with enough moral courage to take a stand against evil without regard to persons or consequences.” Charles Underwood

"No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24

"A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1:8

The Charles Underwood “An Open Letter to Dr. Bob Jones III” details a chronic disconnect in the rationale of Dr. Bob Jones III. The letter effectively outlines the pattern of behavior followed by Dr. Bob Jones III in every controversy in which he has been involved. Underwood’s letter is long. But, if you want to learn about the leadership-style of the Joneses and get a Peek behind BJU’s façade into the way the Joneses treat those who call them to account, this letter is The Source. Even today, it is as up-to-date with regards to Dr. Bob Jones III’s character, heavy-handed, authoritarian methodology, and duplicitous leadership-style today as it was in 1983.

As you read Underwood's letters, note first the double-mindedness of Dr. Bob Jones III, the chancellor of BJU. Secondly, note that whenever a biblical principle conflicts with the interests of Bob Jones University, Dr. Bob Jones III chooses to protect and to advance the interests of himself and/or BJU and ignores the biblical principle. These two factors seem to guide Dr. Bob Jones III and BJU in every controversy in which they are involved.

The letter highlights examples of:

1. The interplay between BJU and its supporting churches and pastors.
2. Bob's doublemindedness and duplicity with regard to Masonry, the Luciferean religion practiced by BJU's board's most influential member, Senator Strom Thurmond.
3. The shameful, retaliatory treatment on BJU's board of those who stood against the Joneses' compromise with regard to Masonry.
4. The elevation of board member, John McLario, to the Executive Committee after he demonstrated personal loyalty to the Joneses and lied about his Masonic membership.
5. Bob's unflinching willingness to sell out good men for the sake of the image of Bob Jones University.
6. The Joneses' ineptitude in managing the staff and students and inability to produce men who were competent for ministry after attending the BJU Institute or University.
7. The Joneses' inordinate speech.
8. The Joneses' duplicity regarding the training of their students in five-point Calvinism.
9. Bob Jones III's duplicity regarding the gathering of facts.
10. Bob Jones III's lack of respect for graduates who practice some of the good principles they have been taught at BJU.
11. Bob Jones III's betrayal of "so many alumni, former students, and supporters".
12. He finally concludes that Bob Jones University has joined itself to idols.
13. The entire letter reveals Bob Jones III to be an unstable, doubleminded individual who

The observations that Underwood made in his 1983 open letter to Bob Jones III are identical to many of the observations Dr. Waite made in a similar Open Letter to Dr. Bob Jones III in 2000, some 17 years later.

FORMER BJU CHURCH PLANTING DIRECTOR ANSWERS BOB JONES III

Rev. Charles Underwood, the first director of Church Planting at BJU, the first director of Church Planting at BJU, received a letter dated April 18, 1983, from Bob Jones III.

BOB JONES University GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29614

EXECUTIVE OFFICES TELEPHONE (803) 242-5100

April 18, 1983

Rev. Charles Underwood
136 Corinne Drive
Greenville, SC 29607

Dear Brother Underwood:

In talking with Doug Lebo, I learned that, apparently, you have received from Roland Rasmussen some unflattering and untrue information about Bob Jones University.

Since he has widely circulated this libelous information accusing the University of approving apostasy, etc., etc., I thought you needed to see the most recent letter I have sent to him and the other enclosure which I have just received from a pastor on the West Coast.

God will not bless what Roland is doing. I trust that you can see through the maliciousness of it and the inaccuracy because, certainly, nothing constructive for the cause of Christ can be gained by smearing the name of Bob Jones University all over America in such an unjust and scurrilous attack.

Kind regards,

Bob Jones III
President
September 28, 1983

Charles Underwood responds:

An Open Letter to Dr. Bob Jones, III
President (This letter may be quoted, copied or printed.)
Bob Jones University (edited and abridged)
Greenville, SC 29614

Dear Sir:

When I read your letter and enclosures of April 18th, I could not help thinking how little these Christians love one another!

As I read the correspondence (yours and Roland’s), I recall that at one time your relationship was a bit more amiable. Roland Rasmussen was the “golden-haired” boy who had done quite a job on the West Coast sending scores of young people to BJU from Faith Baptist Church and schools. For years, Carl Packer filled a Greyhound bus with BJU-bound students. And what an outlet for BJU graduates! A continual stream of new teachers were going into Faith Baptist Schools – among the best paid elementary and high school Christian schoolteachers in the U.S.A. At the BJU banquets in the Los Angeles area, far more Faith Baptist people were present than were present in any other group.

When I was doing public relations work for the university on the West Coast, the people who gave support most gracious were those at Canoga Park. When a stand was made against the New Evangelicals out there, Faith Baptist Church was at the forefront holding BJU in high esteem and supporting it.

Since I have kept abreast of his ministry from the beginning, I will note a few things I have observed. Roland was saved under my ministry and enrolled, with several others, at BJU in 1950. He took the BJU position under your grandfather and led a church out of a liberal denomination while pastoring as a graduate student. After serving at BJU as a grad-assistant who taught N.T. survey and Bible doctrines, he went to California as an assistant to Dr. Bob Wells. Then he took a small church in Canoga Park running seventy-five in Sunday school and built it into the present church running nearly a thousand in Sunday school. He founded a Christian school that now has an enrollment of 1500 students.

The university, recognizing his work and godly stand, awarded him an honorary D.D. in 1964, and it nominated him to the Cooperating Board of Trustees. Up to this point, he had been BJU’s “fair-haired” boy and staunch supporter.

Who is to blame for the rift between the graduate and the university president? I have read very carefully your letters and his, and I know where you place the blame. From your point of view, Roland has launched an unprovoked attack on his alma mater. This is hardly correct!

It should be remembered by someone at BJU that there was a time when we were taught that we should “do right if the stars fall” and that “it is never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right.” These truths remain in the minds of some graduates.

When Roland was on the Cooperating Board of Trustees, he found himself face to face with facts that contradicted the school’s position on separation. Namely, how can a Christian school have members of an anti-Christian organization on its board? How could it allow members of Masonry – whose god is Mah-hah-bone – to influence the affairs of a Christian school? Consider the following anti-Christian position of Freemasonry:

Furthermore that I will not give the Grand Masonic word, except upon the five points of fellowship, and then only in low breath. Whether you swear or take God’s name in vain don’t [sic] matter so much. Of course the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, don’t [sic] amount to anything, but Mah-hah-bone – O, horror! You must never, on any account, speak that awful name aloud. That would be a most heinous crime – unmasonic – unpardonable. You are recommended, it is true, not to take the name of God in vain, but to speak of him with reverence; but then, you know, you have solemnly sworn not to take Mah-hah-bone, the name of the great Masonic god, in vain, and you must be very sure to keep your obligation, for he who lives in strict obedience to his Masonic obligation is free from sin. (Handbook, p. 184, quoted from Mah-Hah-Bone by Edmond Ronayne, p. 107)

Men who belong to a secret order that considers the name of the Lord Jesus Christ as nothing and worships a heathen god were preferred on the Board of Trustees at BJU over a graduate and a longtime supporter who pointed out to Dr. Jones, Jr., and yourself, a contradiction in the university’s position on separation!

Roland Rasmussen, having gone through a traumatic battle against Masonry in his own church (his life was threatened, a hatchet was driven into the front door of his home, three fires were started on the church grounds during the short span of two or three weeks, and a Mason who was a longtime member of his church became an adversary and a continual informer to a Mason friend on the BJU faculty) had good reason for his reaction to the Masons on the Board of Trustees of the University.

When this Masonic adversary of Roland’s, Mr. James Taylor, was dying, he confessed his unequal yoke with Masonry and asked Dr. Rasmussen’s forgiveness. Furthermore, Mr. Taylor confessed that he had stood for the wrong and that Roland had stood for the right. While he was making things right, he also told Roland that he respected him more than he did any other preacher. And so “…every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:11)

When Roland briefed you on the entire situation, and you had all the evidence in hand, you were thoroughly convinced of the true nature of Masonry and made the following statement in your June 30, 1974 letter to Mr. Thomas Resinger:

It [Masonry] is a Luciferian religion. We are fully aware of its diabolic origin and purpose….I believe that any born-again Christina, when the facts from the lips of the Masonic writers themselves are presented, showing that Masonry is a religion and is the worship of Satan, will immediately withdraw.

Then Roland wrote the booklet, Is Freemasonry a False Religion? This booklet seems to have gotten everyone’s attention, not for the better, but for worse. At the time this booklet was published in Dayton Hobbs’ Projector, (Dayton has since been completely silent on the issue) I was directing the Church Planting program at BJU. I read the article with your quotation and was overjoyed to learn that you had taken such a clear position against Freemasonry.

I wrote you a note asking what you thought of the article, and, expecting to get an affirmation of your previous statement and a commendation of the article, I was stunned to find that you were vacillating on the issue. I have your answer before me in your note of February 27, 1976, which reads as follows:
Roland has given me a number of things to read, written by those in the higher echelon of Freemasonry, and the writers most certainly indicate that they believe Masonry to be the worship of Satan. However, that concept is certainly not communicated to the rank and file Mason; and I know Christian Masons who would be horrified at the idea and would withdraw in a minute if that is what they felt it was….

Dr. Bob, did you ever tell Strom Thurmond [the powerful U.S. Senator from South Carolina who remained on the board for many years after this letter was written], who is still a thirty-third degree Mason, and who is still on the BJU Board of Trustees, what Freemasonry was?

Any Mason who has been initiated as an Entered Apprentice knows from the very beginning that if he ever reveals the secrets of Masonry, he does so under the following oath revealed by William Morgan on pages 21 and 22 of his book entitled Freemasonry Exposed:

…I will always hail, ever conceal and never reveal any part or parts, art or arts, point or points of the secret arts and mysteries of ancient Freemasonry which I have received, am about to receive, or may hereafter be instructed in … binding myself under no les penalty than to hve my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots, and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea at the low water-mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours; so help me God, and keep me steadfast….

The taking of the oath to secrecy is the first vital step in the life of a Mason. Any man who would take such an oath and then say that he could not understand what he had done would mark himself an imbecile. Any man who, after taking such an oath, declares himself a Christian would mark himself either a clear imposter or an imbecile. Dr. Bob, you know the truth! Who influenced you to change your mind? You, too, will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ and give an account for this unequal yoke. (2 Cor. 6:14)

Whatever the case, Roland has sufficiently incurred your wrath, and that of your father who apparently changed your mind about Masonry, and he was removed from the University Cooperating Board of Trustees. His removal came about in a most unusual way. It was made clear to Roland that to pursue his campaign against Masonry would eliminate him from the Board of Trustees. He was given five days to send his answer to your father.

Well, he did not relent, thank the Lord, and he was not re-nominated to the board. It is refreshing to see – and it only happens occasionally – a man with enough moral courage to take a stand against evil without regard to persons or consequences.

According to Dr. Monroe Parker, when the question of Masonry came up at a board meeting of the university trustees, the chancellor declared that he did not know that Masonry was an issue, and that, when the present term of the Masons on the board was ended, there would be no more Masons elected. This kind of rhetoric designedly dodges the issue since the board is re-nominated and elected each year. The same Masons remained on the board.

At the time the issue arose –- and everyone became aware that Masonry was an issue – at least one board member was concerned about whether or not a recently elected member was a Mason. He made inquiry by letter to attorney John McLario.

Roland wrote to Dr. John McLario on September 19, 1975, and asked him, “Are you, or have you ever been, a Freemason?” Dr. McLario replied to this inquiry on September 24, 1975, as follows: “You certainly don’t know me very well or you wouldn’t ask if I am a Mason. Of course not, how ridiculous.” A short time later the following information about John McLario was found in Who’s Who in Wisconsin, 1960 edition:
Bn.—Mar. 2, 1925, Pontiac, Mich.
Son—John and Arlene (Tellefson) McLario
M. –Lois J. Kleist, Aug., 19, 1950, Milwaukee, Wis.
Cild.—Dawn D., 6; Lori L., 3.
Educ.—Syracuse Univ.; B.A., Bob Jones Univ., 1950; LL.B., Marquettte Univ., 1953.
Baptist (Trustee); mem., Mason; Lions; Christian Bus. Mens Comm…

It is strange that of all the men on the Board of Trustees who are supposedly concerned about the separatist position of the university, only one was concerned enough about the issue of Freemasonry to make an inquiry about John McLario.

Dr. Bob, as knowledgeable as you are on the subject of Freemasonry, someone apparently has put tremendous pressure on you to protect this evil order. Referring to page 74 of Handbook, Ronayne (Mah-Hah-Bone, pp. 107-108) wrote,
…whenever a minister prays in the name of Christ in any of our assemblies, you [brother Mason] must always hold yourself in readiness, if called upon, to cut his throat from ear to ear, pull out his tongue by the roots, and bury his body at the bottom of some lake or pond. Of course, all this must be done in secret, as it was in the case of that notorious man Morgan, for both law and civilization are opposed to such barbarous crimes, but then, you know you must live up to your obligations, and so long as you have sworn to do it, by being very strict and obedient in the matter, you’ll be free from sin.

After Roland proved to you that McLario was a Mason—as listed in Who’s Who in Wisconsin — he was called by McLario. In a letter to me, Roland described what transpired in the following words:
…McLario called me and admitted that he had been to a couple of Masonic meetings about 18 years before. He then asked me if that would make him a Mason (keep in mind that it was a highly educated attorney who asked me that question). I then asked Dr. McLario if he had taken any oaths, and he said that he had taken a couple. I then told him that he was at least a second degree Mason.

When he asked me what to do about it, I said that we had asked our people who were Masons who wished to come out to renounce the god of Masonry and their oaths and obligations to the order before two or three adult witnesses on the basis of Matthew 18:16.

A couple of weeks later I received a letter form Dr. McLario. In the letter he said, without being at all specific, that he had done what I had suggested.

A short time after that, I wrote to him and told him that I had been asked to write an article on Masonry, and I asked him if I could use his testimony about coming out of Masonry in that article. He wrote back immediately and said that I COULD NOT USE HIS TESTIMONY.

Dr. McLario has since been elevated to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of Bob Jones University. He could not be trusted to tell the truth regarding his affiliation with Masonry, but he can be trusted with the affairs of a Christian university? I think this distinctly reveals the trend of BJU in approving idolatry and deceit.

Referring to page 84 of Handbook, Ronayne (Mah-Hah-Bone, pp. 106-107) revealed that Freemasonry is immoral in the following words:
Furthermore, that I will not violate the chastity of a Master’s wife, mother, sister or daughter, knowing them to be such. This gives you full permission, my dear sir, to do as you please outside of the Masonic order, but you must always respect the female relatives of Masons. Adultery is a great crime under any circumstances, it is true; but so long as you live in strict obedience to your Masonic obligation, you’ll be free from sin.

Referring to p. 183 of Handbook, Roayne (Mah-Hah-Bone, p. 105) revealed that Free masonry advocates anarchy in the following words:
Furthermore that I will obey all due signs and summons. Whenever you see any of our sign s made by a brother Mason, and especially the grand hailing sign of distress, you must always be sure to obey them, even at the risk of life. If you’re on a jury, and the defendant is a Mason, and makes the Grand Hailing sign, you must obey it; you must disagree with your brother jurors, if necessary, but you must be very sure not to bring the Mason guilty, for that would bring disgrace upon our order. It may be perjury, to be sure, to do this, but then your’re fulfilling your obligation, and you know if you ‘live up to your obligations you’ll be free from sin.’

The fact that Freemasonry is a tyrannical religion is clearly demonstrated by the following quotations from Masonic authors of high rank:
A Christian Mason is not permitted to introduce his own peculiar opinion with regard to Christ’s mediatorial office into the lodge. (Lexicon of Freemasonry, p. 404)

Right or wrong, your very existence as a Mason hangs upon obedience to the powers immediately above you. (Webb’s Monitor, p. 196)

If we would be Masons, we must yield private judgment. (Traditions of Freemasonry, p. 30.)

After swearing to keep the secrets of Masonry when he is initiated into the first degree, the Mason then takes the oath of obedience to the powers above him, just as a Jesuit does, when he is initiated into the Second degree of Masonry.

Some of these nice fellows are on the Board of Trustees of BJU. Do these men determine policy, or are they just “rubber stamps”? Was Dr. Bob Jr., ignorant of the fact that Dr. McLario was or is a Mason? He was the Bob Jones University “Alumnus of the Year” in 1973, and he was by no means an obscure figure. I have before me your appraisal of him in your note of April 1, 1976:

Dear Mr. Underwood:

Dr. and Mrs. John McLario of Menomomee Falls, Wisconsin (he is on our board and one of the best friends the university has, a graduate), are most interested in getting a church started in Menomonee Falls, a suburb of Milwaukee. They are going to a MISERABLE G.A.R.B. church in Milwaukee just because it is all there is; and I believe with John and a few other interested people behind this thin, there could be an outstanding nucleus to start with. I told them you would be in correspondence with them about the possibilities.

I wonder if you are aware of why the G.AR.B. church was such a “MISERABLE” church to Dr. McLario, or whether the remark was simply another of our degrading designations.

This Mason, or former Mason—who has declined to allow his testimony of withdrawal to be made public—is on the Executive Committee of the university, and is the advocate for the Association of Christian Schools, and you say, “…he is…one of the best friends the university has…”

I cannot speak for others, but I would denounce anyone I know or have ever known, whether it be father, brother, friend, or an angel from heaven, that I knew to be a Mason. There is no reason for ignorance as to what Masonry is. From the degree of Entered Apprentice to the degree of Master Mason, the initiations are self-divulging to the initiate, and that is one of the reasons for the oaths of secrecy.

It came to my attention some time ago that one of the differences between Dr. Bob Jones, Jr., and Dr. John R. Rice was this issue of Freemasonry. As a young man, Dr. Rice became a Mason, but shortly after his initiation into the first degree of Masonry, he came out of the order and exposed it for what it is. While Dr. Jones, Jr., and yourself endorsed and protected this satanic cult by retaining Masons on your board, Dr. Rice’s expose left no guess-work as to its nature.

Dr. Rasmussen has taken the words of your own letter and your father’s definition of “How to Identify a False Religion,” and he has exposed your approval of a false religion--and that’s the rub!

Since the days of the publication of Is Freemasonry a False Religion?, Dr. Rasmussen has been under continual harassment by you and others at BJU through families in his church. This interference was at its height when I taught a class in Bible at Faith Baptist Schools in 1976. It seemed that his every act was monitored and fed back to the university. Your willingness to interfere in the operations of a local church through people whom you tried to influence against him was demonstrated recently in one of your letters to him. You began by saying, “Someone sent me a tape of your Sunday morning sermon….” This demonstrates that you have people who are trying to work against him and who keep you informed. I would have had a confrontation with these people long ago, but Roland has treated them with Christian dignity even though he knows exactly who they are. They pretend to stand with their pastor and yet endeavor, with you, to silence him.

I am emphasizing your compromising toleration of Freemasons on your board because, after having considered this matter prayerfully for the past eight years, I have concluded that it is the base ingratitude of Dr. Bob, Jr., and yourself that leads to attacks on the school. You sold out a man--a graduate, a member of your board, one of your best supporters--and violated the very principles of separation that you so loudly professed and propagated.

There are some good men on your faculty who are aware of and despise your compromise with Masonry. One of them demonstrated to me, in my BJU office the five points of fellowship of a Master Mason, and he clearly denounced the fraternity as an idolatrous cult.

Another of your faculty members has exposed Masonry as a cult in his church for years. As a matter of fact, he used Dr. Rasmussen’s materials as a concise expose.

Now, why do these men keep silent? Perhaps it is because most of their lives have been given to BJU, or possibly it may be that they are baffled by the position of the university. It may be that they keep hoping, as many others and I do, that God will bring about a change in this ungodly relationship. It is my prayer that God will save the university as a Christian testimony at whatever cost.

I know that Dr. Rasmussen would not prefer me to write in this vein since Masonry is not the issue at hand. I must say, however, that after 40 years of supporting a school that I thought would stand for the truth until Jesus comes, I now find it compromising with a religion that I have been combating during my entire ministry. When you vascillated [sic] on this issue in 1976, I knew that my years of support for BJU were “down the drain!” When you approve idolatry, the approval of apostates is no difficult matter.

Now, let’s consider your defense of the supposed orthodoxy of Westcott and Hort. This defense is apparently not difficult for you since you have tolerated other error. It isn’t necessary to go through all the teachings of Westcott and Hort to detect their heresies any more than it is necessary to eat an entire pound of butter to know that it is butter. If the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is is not heresy, then my Bible needs revision—perhaps a Jones edition. With such a revision, perhaps I could learn to embrace Luciferians and Campbellites. And, why not bring the Church of Christ into the fundamentalist fold? Isn’t that exactly what the anti-Christ would do? That would give rise to another group that could be designated as the Fundamental Idolaters and Baptismal Regenerationists.

Regarding Doug Lebo with whom you talked, I will say to you just what I said to him. I thought of talking to the Church Planting department about starting the church at Piedmont. However, the more I thought about the reversal of your position on Masonry, the less I was inclined to put another serious-minded man in that position of compromise. Lebo made some mistakes; but he is knowledgeable in the Word of God, and I believe that he is sincere. Tough his struggle may be longer and harder depending upon the Lord alone, he will be far better off than if he were unequally yoked with Masonic idolatry however tempting temporary help might seem to be. Furthermore, if by some unfortunate turn of events he failed under the Church Planting program, he would be branded a “quitter” as you branded Norman Fiddler.

Your father’s excoriation of the fellows in the Institute who were under the Church Planting –by requirement at that time –is something I shall never forget. When your father wrote the note below, he had never talked to me about the Church Planting program, and he apparently had never talked to you and did not even know how the program was operating.

Taking a cue from Billy Martin, who did not like Jim Scott’s stand for the truth, your father wrote the following note to me:

Dear Charles:

I have not had a chance to talk this over with the president; but I am going to be leaving shortly, and I thought I ought to get this letter off to you. We have had some good results with some of the men in the Church Planting program, but I am rather disappointed that at the end of the first year, we have two men who are out of the program entirely and one never really made good at all. (I speak of the chap who went to Knoxville.) I am afraid, therefore, that out of six to have this kind of record is not a good average. I can realize that the first year would be a difficult year, but the thing that troubles me is that we are sending out some men who just have not got what it takes. I want, therefore, as the chairman of the board, to urge you to pick men who are an exception. I would rather not send any out than to send out “lame ducks!” I am troubled that we are taking so many of these men from the Institute. Generally, Institute people (and this is confidential) are apt to be somewhat lacking in tact and intelligence and judgment. If they had been capable of real education, they would not have been in the Institute, most of them. Now, I am saying this, as I mentioned, in confidence, because I do not want to reflect on the Institute. It is doing a good job. But when we pick these boys to go out and build churches, we want to pick boys who not only have the character but also the judgment and knowledge of the Word of God. Also, we have got to pick boys who will use good English. Jon [Jon Jones] love his pastor over in Cookeville, and I have heard him say nothing critical except for the fact that he uses sorry music and he makes some real grammatical ‘boo-boos’. For instance, he always used ‘borned-again’. This reflects on us and our program, too.

Now if we cannot find good boys, let’s not send out any. We do not have to send them out just to be sending them out, and it is wrong to waste money if we have any reasonable doubt about, first, their ability to speak effectively and use the King’s English correctly; and third, their judgment and tact as well as their zeal for souls.

If you would like to talk to Bob and me about this sometime, we will be glad to do so; but I do not think any Institute student should be accepted who has not taken that course that Bud Bierman was talking to you about today. We are not just looking for people to send out. What we are trying to do is to send out good people who need some help to go.

Please do not commit yourself to anybody this year without first having a conference with Bob and me so we can know what kind of risk we are taking.

When I answered your father, I showed him nine clear statements wherein he was wrong. No one was ever sent out that did not have the recommendation of the teachers, the director of the Institute, the dean and myself. The final approval was, without exception, by the president. Now, I am citing this as an example of how little regard you and your father have for facts and how judgments are rendered on the basis of some bad reports from someone looking for “brownie points.”

It is also worth noting that the man who used the term “borned-again” was not an Institute man, but he graduated from the university. By the way, it wasn’t the pastor who used the term “borned-again” that was the problem in the church. Instead, it was his critic who left his wife and children and took up with his secretary. You will remember the saying of Dr. Bob, Sr., who said, “I would rather hear a man say, ‘I seen,’ who has seen something, than hear a man say, ‘I have see’ who has never seen anything.”

It is difficult for me to imagine a Christian university that cannot approve of its graduates, but, instead, calls them “lame ducks” and has a program that produces men without tact, judgment, and basic education. Perhaps the people in the Institute ought to know just what the chancellor thinks about them. The note from your father did not surprise me. It just showed me that he talks first and doesn’t think until his foot is in his mouth.

Note some of his more famous, inordinate statements in the following quotations from your father:
President Ford’s wife is a slut!

Lord, smite Alexander Haig, hip and thigh, bone and marrow, heart and lungs and all there is to him!

Consider these expressions in the light of Luke 9:51-56.

Along this line, you may want to do a little reflecting upon the following statements by yourself:
President Reagan is a traitor.

Heathen Court…

Scurrilous attacks…[regarding the letters written by Dr. Rasmussen]

I am not sure you know the meaning of the words you used. If Webster is right, you are wrong in the use of the word “scurrilous” here. Webster wrote: Scurrilous, 1. Using , or given to using, the language of low buffoonery, 2. Containing low indecency or abuse; coarsely opprobrious; obscenely jocular.

Whatever Roland may have said, he never used scurrilous language. It seems to me that you and your father are masters of this art.

Dr. Rassmussen asked to talk with you about the heresies of Westcott and Hort before the debate on this issue ever began. You could have allayed any controversy by scriptural means. Dr. Rasmussen took the scriptural steps, and he was rejected in his attempt to talk with you. (Matthew 18:15)

The attitude of the president toward graduates who take a “Calvinistic stance” is most unbecoming. I just talked to a man a few days ago who received all of his theological education at BJU, and yet he came under your ridicule for embracing Reformed Theology or five-point Calvinism. If you had not retained the five-pointers on the BJU faculty, there would have been no need to debase your graduates. The usually believe what they are taught.

If you had not kept the five-pointers, your faculty would have been decimated, as you well know. I have a note from you in which you stated regarding Calvinism, “We are not so much against the doctrine as we are the emphasis.” Now, that statement may seem logical to you, but to me it is illogical. A man, of necessity, must emphasize what he believes, or else there could be no honest conviction.

The talk and teaching coming from BJU are so contradictory that even your most loyal supporters are questioning the possibility of your survival as the “Fortress of Faith.” A longtime supporter of BJU recently said, “We don’t need BJU anymore.” I wanted to weep when I heard that statement.

Something strange is happening at BJU, and it is turning off people so fast that you must either change your attitude or hire a Madison Avenue advertising agency. It is my studied observation that you are losing favor with God and good men.

Let me give another example of the point that I am attempting to get across. When I wrote to you regarding the controversy with Phyllis McKinney, I indicated who could give you all the necessary information. The people I mentioned were Mr. Rumminger, Dr. Fremont, and Melva Heintz. You put a man in charge of gathering the information that you obviously wanted, and you wrote to me, “Mrs. McKinney was a consultant and nothing more.”

I was called to try to improve the difference, and I was frankly told that they could not recognize her as the core author. Only after Mr. Rumminger stated that Mrs. McKinney was the core author as well as the consultant who was offered a directorship at the university, were you willing to face the issue. Please tell me who would want to keep asking friends to support your institution after treatment like that.

I cannot help wondering if you and your father ever consider that the two of you are not Bob Jones University. There are six thousand supporting alumni, thousands of former students, and friends, multitudes who, if ever asked, to tell you to clean up your act!

We have attempted to explain to offended friends why you tolerate men on your board who are unequally yoked with Masonry; why you speak out against authorities with inordinate language such as only the ungodly employ; why you have no respect for graduates who practice what they have been taught at the university; and why you advocate building independent fundamental churches and yet excoriate those that exercise independence.

I fully believe that most of the graduates, former students, and supporters would be deeply relieved ft BJU—in the persons of you and your father—would really stand for the scriptural separation you so loudly proclaim by openly denouncing Freemasonry for what you, in private correspondence, have written that it is

For over a year, beginning in 1970, I contacted men and women in California on behalf of BJU. I made approximately three thousand contacts by telephone and about a thousand face-to-face. When people faced me with the duplicity of the leadership of the university, I simply disbelieved it, and I went on trying to help build a school that I felt would stand for the truth of God until Jesus comes.

After I left the university in 1976, I made it a matter of personal investigation. Then, I became convinced of your double dealing with the truth with good men and of your compromise with Masonry. You removed from your board Dr. Rasmussen who truly wanted t o help the university keep its testimony. Your alienated Dr. Bob Wells, Phyllis Mckinney, Tom Mahairas, Jim Scott, Norman Fiddler, and only God knows how many others, I once heard a great man say, “Be careful how you treat men as you climb the ladder of success; you may have to meet them on the way down!” Recently, a man who has loved and supported BJU for years said, “Bob Jones, Jr., will destroy the University and Bob, III, will get the blame.”

As I write in this vein about my alma mater, and let it be clearly understood that I am not talking about the university as an institution, nor am I talking about the thousand or more faculty and staff members who, out of love and loyalty for Chris, have given their lives, as I have, to what they thought was service for Christ. I am speaking about the chancellor, and the president who have betrayed so many alumni, former students, and supporters, that it makes me heartsick.

I started sending students to Bob Jones College in 1943, and until 1976, I was satisfied that there would be no compromise. However, I have not only found compromise, but I have found pure deceit with regard to that compromise. One compromise leads to another, and that, in my opinion, is the reason why you will not face the facts that Dr. Rasmussen has presented with reference to Westcott and Hort.

I am prepared to pay the price for sending this letter to you. I know that I too shall become a Personna Non Grata. I have settled this matter with the Lord because, at 72 years of age, I know that I must soon face Him. My conscience is clear, and the Lord knows that I would like to see my alma mater a true “Fortress of Faith.” I will bear record at the Judgment Seat of Christ that I sounded the warning, “…have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in SECRET.” (Ephesians 5:11-12)

Your toleration of Masons on the board, and your defense of Westcott and Hort and their heresies cannot be honoring to the Lord. To say that it is, is to belie the very nature of true Christianity. It has been my hope that the Lord will not have to say of BJU: “Ephraim [BJU] is joined to idols: LET HIM ALONE.” (Hosea 4:17) However, I am very fearful that He will.

Sincerely,

Charles Underwood
Former Director
Church Planting Program, Bob Jones University

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

What stubidity! No wonder the world looks down on us Christians. We are our own best enemy. You sir are a very unhappy Christian believer yourself. I never learned Jonesisms or any other ism at BJU 76-80.

Tim
Thanks for your comments. I believe it was Bob Jones Sr. who said, "People won't mock consistent Christians. They will respect them."

If those are the comments elicited from you after reading Charles Underwood's letter to Bob Jones III, then perhaps, while you may not have been aware of the intellectual and spiritual leaven sown in your mind and heart, you at least learned a couple of the most important, fundamental characteristic of a Jonesian.

A Jonesian will instinctively ignore the facts and reject anyone who would call into question the integrity of the Joneses and BJU.

Christ's solution for such self-righteous ignorance was to command His disciples to 'Let them alone. They be blind leaders of the blind.'

Underwood said that when he worked for BJU and people confronted him with the duplicity of the leadership of BJU, he just simply disbelieved it. When he retired he made the matter the object of investigation.

Truth is not for everyone. Some people prefer deception to truth. Some people even resort to deliberate self-deception in an effort to bolster a dishonest socio-religious structure.

I am reminded of the man caught in bed with another woman by his wife. As the wife looked on in disbelief, the husband denied the act and said, "Don't believe your eyes, believe me."

And, ignoring the facts and blindly listening to lying, duplicitous authority figures, is how Jonesians approach any unflattering reports and facts concerning the Joneses/BJU.

Don't believe me, Tim, open your eyes and ears take a look for yourself. Any intelligent, objective, discerning man who looks at the facts will conclude that the duplicitous, lying, scheming Bob Jones III to whom Underwood addressed his letter in 1983 is the same Bob Jones III I dealt with in 1991 and is the same Bob Jones III who showed himself to be a duplicitous, scheming liar on Larry King Live in 2001.

And, Tim, all Jonesians, owe the leaven in their hearts and minds to the teachings and examples of the Joneses.